Re: These guard dogs (Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory")

Gil Hardwick (
Fri, 05 May 1995 05:41:15 GMT

In article <3oai8c$>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>Why, you ARE too stupid to understand, Gil. I was referring to your claim that
>everything's determined by cultural biases. Now, perhaps you can explain why
>it's valid for you to dismiss the Big Bang theory as mere cultural bias, and
>it's not valid for me to dismiss your ravings using the same argument? Are you
>really that incompetent?

Well, I MUST certainly be too stupid to understand, Carl old fruits,
whatever it is you to want me understand in the first place.

At no time have I ever made any "claim that everything's determined
by cultural biases" anywhere whatsoever. Nor have I ever at any time
dismissed the Big Bang Theory as mere cultural bias. I have made no
effort to dismiss the theory at all for that matter, nor refute it,
nor argue against it, nor to pay very much attention to it in any

I do fear that you yourself must have been reading too much of John
McCarthy's rant against us ideological left-wing perverts. That you
should choose so to sit there savaging anyone who dares query your
manner of presentation to international science conferences, for my
part, is very much at issue.

Shall I repeat myself here once more for your edification, perhaps?

So that eventually you might stop feeling so angry and frustrated that
you are to grasp a fairly ordinary truism of human discourse, like
some poor Attention Deficit Disorder child in grade school ?


My argument, Carl, is that Big Bang Theory, like Evolutionary Theory
or any other such more-or-less useful explanatory tool of science, is
nevertheless a constructed narrative among humans. That it may be the
most reliable narrative on those particular aspects of the material
universe ever to have been told does not alter the fact.

The observed facts are not at issue, yes?

I argue AGAIN, moreover, that the narrative is not the event. Big Bang
Theory is not the Big Bang itself, but THEORY. Is that to complicated
for your feeble brain to assimilate at this point, or do you need more
time on it?

It is the manner of narrative at issue, yes?

{Insert Delay, 00:15:00}

Now, are you back with us again? Had a nice cup of coffee with your
cookies, did you? Sitting comfortably? Paying attention?


I argue Carl in consequence that Big Bang Theory is no more inherently
important to anthropology than any other human narrative. My asking
"So What?" is a legitimate rejoinder to the assertion of Big Bang
Theory made to us here on our own conference from among our peers and
colleagues in the physical sciences.

We don't have to take it on board just because you people insist that
we must, surely. Most especially given the misplaced violence and
aggression with which you and others chose to pursue the propagation
of your theories on the Big Bang or anything else whatsoever.

I don't have to sit by watching other people being bludgeoned with
it, because they are themselves inclined to religious persuasion, or
perhaps happen merely to be untrained in the esoterica of physics.

That has nothing to do with the theory's reliability as an account of
the material universe, nor indeed with any idea that we here might be
wanting to refute it in any way at all. I tell you that I would reply
to you in precisely the same manner were you to attempt shoving Alice
In Wonderland down my throat.

IF, on the other hand, Carl old fruits, were you to have us attend to
your account perhaps you might care to present it in the appropriate
manner, YES?

That merely requires you to form valid argument and support it with
what facts you have at your disposal, which have been repeatedly and
impartially tested to be reliable. It does NOT require that we have to
pay any particular attention to you should we so choose.

We are busy with other work to do in our own field of study, yes?

Can you possibly imagine such a thing?

He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270